someday we'll televise the breaks. luckily today is not that day. most of all to you f watching. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. welcome to friday. "meet the press daily." good evening. i am chuck todd here in washington home of the world series champions, of course. i don't know when i'm going to get tired of saying that. but after another big week of testimony in the house's

impeachment inquiry, the evidence may be tilting in the democrats' favor but the calendar is arguably not. it's already november. 2020 is fast approaching. we've had a parade of private depositions but we are seemingly still weeks away from public hearings. speaker pelosi told bloom berg news today she assumes public hearings will begin this month but we are likely at least a month away from a key court ruling which could determine if other high profile witnesses, say like john bolton, will be compelled to testify or not. and after the public hearings are done, a senate trial could take weeks. meaning democrats are going to have to start convincing the public that somehow congress is in a better positions are and te going to have that make that case in an election year. and that could be a tall task. perhaps even taller by the fact that some democrats like pete buttigieg are arguing that maybe it's best for them if voters decide, not congress. here's what buttigieg told the

"boston globe" yesterday. >> i think the impeachment process is based on a constitutional standard and needs to run its course accordingly. i will say that there would be a lot of benefit to trump and trumpism getting a resounding, thumping defeat at the ballot box because i think that's what will be required for congressional republicans to be reunited with their conscience. >> now, this isn't the first time buttigieg has made an argument like that since the impeachment inquiry began. he's also not the only democrat running for president who wants to see voters determine whether this current president stays in office. and yesterday's near party line house vote combined with new polling on impeachment only heightens the dilemma facing democrats because the country is divided on impeaching and removing mr. trump. and his right flank is once again largely holding despite all the damning evidence and testimony against him. democrats have said they are proceeding with impeachment to save the republic. but they've also warned that a failed impeachment could make things worse. bottom line, the facts in the

impeachment inquiry are daunting for republicans. but right now, the politics and the calendar are just as, if not more, daunting for the democrats. joining me now with the latest on capitol hill. my nbc news colleague garrett haake. i want to get an update on what's happened. today suspect one of the few days we did not have a deposition but we did hear from speaker pelosi about public hearings. she assumes they begin this month. well, it isn't this week and i know it's not thanksgiving week. so we're basically -- and it ain't gonna be next week -- so is it going to happen in two weeks? or three weeks? >> o. >> they are in a box here, chuck. the date i have circled on my calendar as the earliest possible date this could happen is a week from wednesday. that gets the house back in washington, past a fly-in day, and gives adam schiff enough time to given seven-days notice. but as you point out, they are really squeezed with timing here and unlike closed door depositions, you cannot do an impeachment hearing on a week or

day when the whole house isn't here. it sort of defeats the purpose of saying we're going to bring this into the sun light but do it on a saturday morning or something like that. so you are looking at a very narrow calendar here to ghet things started. but i do think the first public elements of this might come as early as monday or tuesday next week. adam schiff gave a couple interviews last night saying he plans to start releasing these transcripts very soon. democrats need that. they need something they can talk about in public to show for the work they have done thus far and releasing those transcripts would give them quite an opportunity in that regard. >> what is the democratic -- sortd of the rank and file democratic house conversation about the 2020 issue? look, we know that there are some who are in really tough races. that's one conversation. but just those that are thinking about the 2020 issue large -- in the larger picture. >> well, especially among the freshmen, they got here without focusing on impeachment, right? they are the ones who have had the most experience in a certain way of running only in the trump

era. this is not necessarily something that they want to be talking about going into 2020. they want to be talking about more of a record of legislative accomplishment. but it's also unavoidable in part because of the nature of the theoretically impeachable offense we are talking about here, right? this is a president who democrats believe was using his power to make sure he wins the next election. so it's not as though you can say we're going to just let the voters decide this. the whole point of what democrats think is impeachable about this is they think the president was trying to let people in other countries decide this. so you cannot divorce the electoral politics from it and it is a -- yet unsolved riddle for the democrats running for re-election next year. >> in some ways, though, garrett, and you're not alone in noting that part of this is about the idea that he may have been essentially trying to cheat to win, right? which is what makes this urgent. they haven't made that case in that way as strongly yet, and i think it hasn't popped through but i think that's one of their

challenges going forward. anyway, garrett haake, what a long week. >> you're telling me. >> i'm sure you didn't hate the fact that we're at least depositionless today. but garrett haake on capitol hill. >> we'll let this one slide. >> we'll let a day go by. thanks very much. joining me now, nbc news colleague. and former democratic congresswoman and washington post columnist donna edwards. mark, you and i have delved into this topic a million times. i think on one hand, democrats can make the quid pro quo case. but can they make the case so well that they can convince the public that he shouldn't be on the ballot? right? do they have to prove, like, not just beyond doubt but a much higher bar? >> they have to actually make the case. and, you know, chuck, look back at the mueller testimony. all that stuff was actually there in the 400-500 pages of the testimony for democrats to actually have a coordinated

communication strategy. and they really didn't. in fact, when you end up having robert mueller testify on capitol hill a couple months after that report had actually come out, there really wasn't a whole lot of urgency. if democrats actually want to win and capitalize on this, they're actually going to need to take the narrative in their hands and make a case to the american public and not rely on the media for all the kind of scoops and great reporting that's actually come about from this. one other really important point is how much we've actually learned in totality in just the five weeks of this impeachment inquiry. to me, it's actually stunning -- you know, i've been a washington reporter going back to lewinsky. how much we have learned about this just in five weeks to me is striking. now, it's going to be up to democrats to tell the story they want to tell in a way they think's going to score points for them. >> donna, you know this leadership well. speaker pelosi foresaw this. it's why she tried to stop -- it's very divisive. it's probably not going to work unless you have bipartisan b

buy-in. they don't and yet they feel like they have no choice but to do this. what do they do next? >> i think the speaker foresaw this because she was looking at the mueller report, the denseness of it, all the things that we know. ukraine changed all of that for democrats because here you had basically an open court, the president of the united states by his own words, both on camera and in a sort of transcript, and that really didn't leave democrats a choice. now, given that, i think it's been important for speaker pelosi to take control of the process and to say, here's -- we're going to have a hearing process that really will enable us to tell the story. and this is a much simpler story. it's about cheating. it's about fairness. and it's not about the last election. it's about this election. i think the democrats still have

a long way to go to make sure that the american public understands that. and it's not just about releasing transcripts because people aren't going to read them. >> but address -- look. i'm pretty convinced that at some point, the senate republicans who are the more uncomfortable defending the president are simply not going to defend him anymore but simply say let's let the voters decide. it's an easy thing for voters to agree to. right? like how do democrats overcome that messaging. >> well, i think -- i mean, this is where listening to mayor pete's words confounds me. and the reason is because if you don't begin to set the bar and it's a constitutional bar for this president, it almost seems there's no behavior a future president would engage in that is not impeachable. and i think that here what democrats can say is that this is about establishing -- reestablishing -- constitutional norms. it's about how we move forward. the protection of the presidency. the protection of the constitution. and i think that is a credible argument for the american people

who've already bought on to the idea that there's some there to investigate. >> matthew, have you seen anything that convinces you the republican party's going to break from trump? like how -- what -- what do you -- do you know what that line is? >> i don't and i don't think we've reached it. i think everything we've seen, including the house vote, including the 50 to 53 republican senators to hold the vote for certain protections for the president shows that the republican party is with the president on this issue. does not believe we've reached the bar of impeachment and because it's not just one person. there's no american person that you have to convince. it is the american public and that means in this age of polarization, several publics. they have the republican party is a bull work for president trump right now. >> you know, mark, david brooks today sort of -- he noted and i thought he was right. he's like you walk around washington, you think oh my god. i don't know if the president's

going to survive. the second you step outside of it, you're like, oh, what the hell are they doing? he's talking about voters outside of washington. for most, impeachment is not a priority. it's dull background noise. people in washington, the media doing the nonsense they always do -- but the fundamental reality is that many americans are indifferent. i think you see evidence of that even on the campaign trail on the democratic side of the aisle. >> yeah. i actually saw it in 2016, chuck. you know, we ended up hearing from a lot of republican establishment types and congress people like, no way trump is going to be able to win in 2016. >> what are you talking about? >> right. no, look at this base he ends up having for him. so yeah. i think there is a split there and it needs to be reconciled. but, you know, i want to go back to something donna was just saying about pete buttigieg and the one reason i'm actually kind of sympathetic, if i am a democrat running for president right now, i want the attention on me. like, let's end this impeachment right now.

and, you know, tonight is actually the night of the jefferson jackson dinner. >> truth justice -- >> liberty and justice dinner. >> it was truce, justin, and the american way i thought. >> this was the dinner that catapulted barack obama to the nomination. if you are a democrat who has a great speech tonight, how much attention are you going to be able to get? and pete buttigieg, if you're not elizabeth warren or joe biden right now, you need to actually break through this impeachment story. so i understand where he's coming from onlet' get this out of the way because there are people like me that need a lot more attention. >> yeah. donna. >> i mean, it does freeze the politics in a way. but i also think that democrats are in a track that if they are going to go the impeachment route, if there are going to be articles of impeachment, i fully expect that the house at least is going to wrap this up before the end of the year. and then it'll be up to the senate whether they shove it into -- >> you have a lot of confidence in the house. >> i do. >> really? >> yeah, i do. i mean, i think they are determined that they can get it done and they don't want to rush it but they want to put the

witnesses forward and let the american people hear. but i also think that they understand the political dynamics. that they can't send this well into next year. >> still trying to figure out what a senate trial looks like. wild. >> there are two democratic defections to the vote yesterday. one might assume that there'd be more democratic defections actually comes down to it. >> maybe. but there was one republican already. >> those are not redefections, though. >> the more democrats who vote against impeachment, the more easily republicans can say let the voters decide. but i do think it's important in this age of the trump era, we've gott gotten so used to looking at every event that is he happening, nothing ever changes. which is true until it actually does. if you end up believing as donna does, hey, something bad was done, we need to actually

investigate it. let the process play out and we'll see how the politics go. but to say i don't think this is going to change any votes, that's not a reason not to investigate or do something. >> there is an urgency and it's about this election, not about the last one. >> if that is urgent, then they need to do a better job of making that case. they don't make -- that is not the lead that they make here. that he's cheating on the next election. this is why they have to do that now. irthink they almost need to simplify. if that is the reason because any other -- i don't know -- >> i agree. i agree. >> all right. you guys are sticking around. we got a fun show because there's a lot of interesting stuff shall we say is happening under the radar. going to talk a lot more about the changing leader board on the 2020 race. biden v warren's getting a little interesting. but first with the impeachment clock ticking down, what will the democrats do? i'll ask a congressman who's e' party proceed. and how he'd like to see the party proceed.

one of them could be yours. to see if your vehicle is on the recall list.llav? this is totally customizable, so you focus only on predictions might affect the value of the stocks you're interested in. now this is what i'm talking about. yeah, it'll free up more time for your... uh, true crime shows? british baking competitions. hm. didn't peg you for a crumpet guy. focus on what matters to you with thinkorswim. ♪ they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ wheeveryone is different.ta, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control

compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, get 50% off when you buy any new lg phone. xfinity mobile. click, call or visit a store today. annoepidemic fueled by juul use with their kid-friendly flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c. as we've been saying, the urgency of the impeachment inquiry is growing for democrats as the timeline is shrinking. 2020, i can see it from our

house. joining me now is illinois democratic congressman, he is a member of the house intelligence committee, has been taking part in all the key depositions taking place behind closed doors. he joins me now. congressman quidley, good to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> so let me start with what we heard from speaker pelosi today. she said to a meeting of bloomberg editors and reporters that she assumes public hearings begin this month. can you add any more to that? or should -- when should we expect this? are we looking sometime before thanksgiving? >> i think so. i think it can and must be done. it it's difficult. i know there's a time crunch. let me add that the reason there's a time crunch is that my republican colleagues in the white house have obstructed the investigation in the previous russia investigation from day one telling witnesses not to testify and withholding documents. so there is a time crunch. not one that we created. >> make the case to a voter that

says to you, i see what the president did here. why shouldn't i make this decision before you do, congressman? >> because the constitution doesn't say it's optional. it doesn't say it's politically feasible, go ahead. it talks about crimes and misdemeanors. and in this case, it isn't a question of whether or not the president abused his power. he did. and he must be held accountable for it. and i'll add this. the day -- the days after the mueller testimony took place is when the call took place with ukraine. this isn't a president who commits a crime once. if he isn't held accountable, he goes on to worse things. president jimmy carter's national security advisor laid the stakes out a long time ago for why this matters to our national security. he said that russia, with ukraine, is an empire. that russia controlling ukraine is an empire. and if it doesn't have control

of ukraine, it is simply not that. so there's a lot at stake here. these issues matter. i think we can get this done. and i do believe the whistle-blower and all those brave people who have come forward and testified have a right to tell this to the american people. they spoke truth to power and i think they'll be very compelling testimony. >> is there -- are you getting to the point where you have to stop going after certain leads? and the reason i say this is that, you know, there's a point where you may have enough evidence to make your one charge. but actually, the more you learn, it basically creates more bread crumbs to follow. when do you have to draw that line? when do you believe that you know what, we could keep going and keep going and keep going or we've got to -- we've got to put an end date or a period somewhere. >> i think that's right. i think it happened during the russia investigation and we learned that he ran out of time. he didn't get a chance to question the president.

he didn't follow the money and the money laundering issues. we're certainly finding that with the witnesses here because they lead us to other evidence of wrongdoing. so at some point, you put that main body there, right? the volker text. the whistle-blower's complaint. the transcript from the white house. i think the most significant arguments are already in the public's domain. >> and because the most sig think can't arguments are, what do you make of the fact that essentially the republican position has been unmoved? right? elected republicans, at least publicly, are sticking by the president and even in the polling, you see that largely self-described republicans are sticking by the president. if you can't persuade folks of what you believe is open and shut, then what do you do? >> i think first, let's see what happens when these witnesses are allowed to testify before the american people. i do believe it'll have an

incremental effect. at the very least, if indeed as you suggest, the jury isn't the -- the senate, it's the american people, i do believe you're seeing some changes. even among the republicans. i don't care if it's ten points. i also think we're seeing a dramatic change among middle america. this is a president who won by, what, 78,000 votes in three states in the electoral college. so i think it's important because it's the right thing to do. to hold the president accountable and do i think it'll have an effect next year? i certainly hope so. >> tell me about next week. do you plan on subpoenaing the lawyer in the national security council, mr. eisenberg? >> these are all decisions that are taking place in real time. they're taking place with leadership and chairman schiff and some really smart staffers. i -- i think you take this day by day. we're going to move forward in a deliberate fashion, a smart fashion. at the same time, with some

degree of urgency. >> what would you advise presidential candidates right now to be saying? and i say this because whether you like it or not, when you have some of the presidential candidates are going it would be better if the voters decided. you've heard the comments from pete buttigieg. he sort of supports both processes. he believes that you guys have to fulfill your constitutional duty. but he believes voters might be able to deliver a more decisive blow to trump-ism. does that undermine your efforts right now in -- in -- in laying out your case to the public if some of the presidential candidates say, hey, impeachment might be getting in our way? >> you know, it's a long way till next november. i understand they have some urgency before filing deadlines. the fact of the matter is what i would tell them to say to the public is, the president needs to be held accountable. the public's going to be told a story about this president,

which isn't particularly flattering. they'll tell a story about a president who was willing to muscle an ally in a very vulnerable point, risking our national security, and putting their very lives at stake. i think that's important, as well. >> congressman mike kwigly, democrat from illinois. thank you for coming on and sharing your views, sir. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> up ahead, democrats say there's been a lot of compelling testimony already in the impeachment inquiry. but now, they want to know what more can be learned by compelling testimony from a few reluctant witnesses. the former acting solicitor general joins me next on that legal fight. solicitor general joins me next on that legal fight. iness forward. but when your team is always dealing with device setups, app updates, and support calls... you can never seem to get anywhere. that's why dell technologies created unified workspace, powered by vmware. ♪ a revolutionary solution that lets you deploy, manage, support

and secure all your devices from the cloud. so you can stop going in circles, and start moving forward. we'd love some help with laundry. here's how you do it. spray and scrub anything with a stain. soak your nasty jersey. it stinks! wash the really dirty clothes separately. remember -hard work builds character! tide pods with upgraded 4-in-1 technology unleash a foolproof clean in one step. aww, you did the laundry! but you didn't fold it. oh, that wasn't in the note. should have sent a text. #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide. it's got to be tide. my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough.

and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding?

memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! guaranteed monthly have been recalled because of dangerous takata airbags. one of them could be yours.

go to safeairbags.com to see if your vehicle is on the recall list. it could save your life. welcome back. even with all the depositions in the impeachment inquiry happening behind closed doors, the story about president trump's interactions with ukraine got even clearer this week. witnesses are providing impeachment investigators with what house democrats are calling overwhelming evidence of a quid pro quo. but democrats may be running out of witnesses who are willing to cooperate once they've been subpoenaed. and now, they're fighting to obtain testimony from some potentially key figures, like normer national security advisor john bolton who was reportedly so alarmed by the pressure he saw put on ukraine that he asked an aide to alert white house lawyers. now, bolton has been invited to testify next thursday but his lawyer says he won't appear without being subpoenaed. bolton shares an attorney with charles cuppkupperman, who has

to court to find out if he has to appear before the house intelligence committee. there won't be a decision on that case for more than a month and it's not clear if bolton will testify before that case is decided. so unpack this debate a bit. former acting solicitor general and of course now nbc news legal analyst. so, neil, there's also another case i want to bring up that i think has an impact here and that is the issue with don mcgahn, former white house counsel where he has been trying to find out if he has to testify before congress or not. this is clearly a separation of powers issue. why is this still at -- i'm just being a lament here. i'm not a lawyer. you've more than just a lawyer. you're an excellent lawyer. how is it that this is even up for dispute? i mean, i can't believe some of the arguments that the executive branch is winning on. >> yeah. trump's lawyers and the justice depart -- >> even when leaving office. >> even when they've left. >> don mcgahn. so essentially, when they're arguing is that don mcgahn

always has executive privilege. >> right. so, look, there's a notion of executive privilege in the law. it's been recognized since 1974 at the very least. but that's for limited surgical things. what trump has done is what he always does. a kind of mcmansion huge assertion of executive privilege, which literally nobody believes. and it's astounding that a guy whose job is literally to uphold the constitution, take an oath to do it, says something like this because it's ridiculous. >> the justice department on his behalf is pushing this maximalist position. i guess i want to ask you and, look, the circuit judges have almost been incredulous at some of the arguments. and yet this hasn't been an open and shut ruling yet. why? >> well, because, you know, i think anytime the president makes an assertion in court, it's going to be tested. and it's going to be briefed and argued because judges want to be careful in the like. but they've got no precedent to support this and that's what happened at yesterday's hearing. trump's lawyer and the justice department lawyer was asked can

this possibly be right? you're saying the federal courts have no ability to bring mcgahn forward? that defies everything she said about the precedent of our laws and the justice department lawyers answer really couldn't answer it. so i think we'll get fast rulings but they want to do it after the briefing and argument. >> all right. and try to explain in layman's terms what kupperman is trying to get answered here because he's basically saying, is a congressional subpoena powerful enough to overcome, i guess it's executive privilege? is that what he's arguing? is that what he's asking for a ruling on? >> so the house is saying, kupperman, come in and give us evidence. that's what's called a subpoena. and he's saying, well, i don't know if i have to obey the subpoena or have to obey the president who's telling me not to come and tell the truth. >> which branch of government does he listen to? >> right. the order way, chuck, this is resolved is by saying one of two things. either kupperman says, look, i'm going to go forward. and then, white house, it's up to you to stop me. or i'm not going to testify, and house, it's up to you to come in

and force me to do so. the latter is what nixon did in 1974. didn't work out too well for him. >> you know, i'm not risking the congressional subpoena black mark on me so i'm going to go and testify. >> exactly. >> kupperman seems to be finding a third way, right? which is, look, i don't want to get in trouble with anybody. help me federal court system, tell me what to do. >> the problem with that is federal courts are not advisory. they wait for concrete cases. they don't just give you advice as to which course of action you should take. so this is a kind of ludicrous argument and it's about delay. i mean, all of these aurmrgumen in court that trump has been making is about one thing, which is trying to stall this out so it can get closer to the election. >> the history of donald trump and lawsuits going back 40 years is delay, delay, delay. >> exactly. >> what -- obviously, this will get to the supreme court because any dispute between legislative -- legislative and executive gets to the supreme court. are we so sure how the supreme court's going to rule? >> yeah, i mean on these arguments, these aren't close legal arguments.

>> you think these will be typical 9081s at best. >> yeah. the arguments they've advanced so far have literally no legal support and so, you know, to make them itself is to do what nixon did, which is to risk an obstruction of justice charge to say i'm still above the law. my advisors don't have to come in and tell the truth and that's just so fundamentally unamerican. >> kupperman and bolton both appear to be saying we'll wait for this ruling. the hearing is going to be december 10th. that's -- today's november 1st. that's more than a month away. nearly six weeks away. can this be handled simultaneously? speaker pelosi hinted hearings may start as early as, say, in the next two weeks. public hearings. can they handle both at the same time? or do they need to wait? >> absolutely. this is why trump's old playbook with mueller was delay, delay, delay, well, worked there. isn't working here. there's too much kinetic energy behind the ukraine investigation. it's moving too quickly. and, look, the house does not need kupperman or bolton or any of these people to actually

testify. that's all gravy. trump's words -- >> politically, they may. no, i would argue politically, bolton up there making the case against the president if they're looking to convince republicans, might be helpful. >> no doubt it will be helpful. but boy, what trump said in the phone call alone is the turkey. it's the -- >> you don't think the fireside chat's going to help? >> yeah, i think he's really looking -- you know, it's a very damning transcript. >> when he utters the words but can you do us a favor? >> though. yes. exactly. >> all right. neil. always appreciate your expertise. thanks for sharing it wus. up ahead, the bad polls are piling up pour joe biden. 2020 vision is next. s e piling up pour joe biden 2020 vision is next. 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads?

try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. little things can be a big deal. to severe psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant

or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪

welcome back. we got some breaking news in the 2020 race. democratic presidential candidate beto o'rourke who generated a ton of buzz when he got into this race has just announced that he dropping out of this race. and that he will not run for any office in 2020.

at least not for the united states senate in texas. he made the announcement just moments ago on medium. here's what he wrote in part. our campaign has always been about seeing clearly, speaking honestly, and acting decisively. in that spirit, i am announcing that my service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. let's bring back our panel for the day. mark murray, donna edward, matthew are back with me. so, mark, at this point in the campaign not a surprise. at the start of this calendar year, though, beto o'rourke not even making it to iowa. when he started his campaign, he had basically the best of every obama operative under the age of 50 seemed to be on team beto. >> yeah, chuck, we pointed out very early when he got in he was either going to be the boom or bust candidate. in some ways, i'm -- >> texas wildcard, huh? >> i'm not that surprised. i will end up saying, you know, talk about somebody who still does have political talents. you know, this is running for

president and you're unsuccessful doesn't mean you're not talented. i even look back at john huntsman. the 2012 cycle. boy, he looked great on paper. david pluff was scared of john huntsman. didn't work out because that's where republicans are. democratic voters aren't where beto o'rourke is but there was rational in him running. on the younger side, particularly when there was so many people who are older. has a family who's cute. who ended up running in a race where he proved, hey, if i can actually run this same race in iowa and the industrial midwest i did in texas, democrats can actually win. so there was a rationale. it just proved that democratic voters weren't buying the product. and i mean that's just what we end up so seeing almost every cycle. >> i got two words. pete buttigieg. like that was his problem. buttigieg grabbed that early buzz that you could have argued you would have thought beto would have grabbed. >> well, i think here's the thing with the field where you've got so many candidates is you have multiple candidates

traveling in a handful of lanes. and beto was in that lane. and not everybody in that same lane is going to survive and i think, you know, what is great for me is that, one, beto has a political future and that's not over. and he'll be able to figure out what that is. but the other thing is that he had the presence of mind to realize right now sitting at 2% what his future might look like in this race. and so what i'd urge is all those other 1%ers and zero percenters out there maybe follow his lead. >> matthew, i have a feeling there may be some folks in the conservative movement who don't want to see beto o'rourke go away too quickly because there are two things he brought into the debate that freaked out democrats, let alone seemed to spark interest. one was the you're darn right we're going to take your guns. and the other was getting rid of the tax exemption for churches which wouldn't please some churches on the left-hand side. >> the good news for republicans is that's all on video.

the video isn't going anywhere. i'd say what's striking is beto swung for the fences on the cultural issues. but when you look at the other candidates in that party who are leading, they are the ones who focus on economic issues. elizabeth warren made some headlines today. >> which i want to -- >> medicare for all. and then bernie sanders, of course, is saying his plan for medicare for all is better. they're the ones who have a large part of the party behind them right now. beto with the strong claims on guns and same-sex marriage wasn't able to get a traction with his own party. >> you are a wonderful segment producer here, matthew, because you've transitioned us into the other story of the day, which is elizabeth warren, mark, released her pay for. and on one hand, good for her. she put it all out there. the problem is she's assuming a utopian society that can pass a plan like this. yes, her plan, she makes the numbers work. but you have to find the society that thinks this is a good idea. she acquired a new opponent today that i don't think people

realize. nancy pelosi. who said very plainly, i'm not a fan of medicare for all. biden hit warren. then warren said biden's talking points were republican talking points. something just happened today. i think we just saw the left center fight in the democratic party open up. >> and somehow it's always over healthcare, right, chuck? but, you know, so on the one hand, as you pointed out, i think what elizabeth warren did when you're talking about a democratic primary electorate was pretty brilliant. she took the i have my pay fors, here you go. and hey general election audience, i'm not going to raise taxes on the middle class. but as you pointed out, the question becomes how does the person with the plans implement these plans? and i look back on what ended up happening in vermont back in 2014 where they created their single-payer program. it turned out at the time the democratic governor basically said the math just doesn't work or actually there may be ways to do it. i just can't politically pass any of this stuff. it didn't get done in vermont. republicans elected a democratic governor in vermont afterwards.

and to me, that vermont example is so illustrative on how do you actually implement this stuff? >> you know, donna, nancy pelosi's argument today was, let's make obama care work. you know, and that to me is -- i -- i have always believed that elizabeth warren's biggest challenge is if you're fatigued by the disruption of donald trump, why is the answer more disruption, just a liberal version of it? i think the fatigue is i'm fatigued. from the disruptions. >> yeah. i don't know. i mean, i read the plan today and, you know, it's a serious plan about how to pay for what her idea is. she didn't run away from who she -- >> she deserves credit for that. i just don't know how any congress that i'm familiar with over the last ten years or the next ten passes that. >> here's the next step for elizabeth warren because she says it at the bottom. now, she's going to develop a transition plan for the plan that she has. i'm waiting to see that. but i think -- but what the american people can do, and i know i did this personally, i

went on to the calculator that's on her website so i could figure out what it would do for me. and i thought, yeah, i would like not to be able to pay $27,000 in out-of-pocket costs for healthcare. and i think when people do that, they'll -- you know, they'll take it seriously or not. but she's put it out there and i think anybody else who has some kind of plan for healthcare now has an obligation to do something similar for the plans they have. >> how excited is brad prascale today that she did this? >> immensely excited. $52 trillion. that's over ten years. the government spends slight -- she would literally double the spending of the federal government if this plan were to become enacted. job losses. lot of people employed in healthcare. no more. sorry. and the fundamental problem with medicare for all is that when you ask americans do they like the healthcare they have? they say yes. so she is running up against a loss of version and a status quo bias that is endemic to our

democracy. >> status quo bias is a great phrase, donna. >> yeah, i did because it's not a $52 trillion plan. what it does is it takes medicare costs that we have. it adds into that what we're already spending out of pocket. and it says, this is how we're going to reduce your healthcare. so i think we have to be serious about examining the plan, too, instead of putting out there whatever top line talking points there are. >> well, never. that always happens really well in presidential campaigns. thank you, donna, matthew, and mark. thank you very much. up ahead, alarming new climate warning showing the dangers are even worse or coming sooner than we thought. that's next. r than we thought that's next. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

to earn j.d. power chevdependability awards... across cars... trucks... and suvs. four years in a row. since more than 32,000 real people... just like me. and me. and me. took the survey that decided these awards. it was only right that you hear the good news from real people... like us. i'm daniel. i'm casey. i'm julio. only chevy has earned j.d. power dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs. four years in a row. lashmakes every lash fullyrom maybsensational.ork. our fanning brush volumizes every kind of lash... ...for a sensational full-fan effect.

lash sensational. only from maybelline new york. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. this piece is talking yeah?. so what do you see? i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service,

and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions. and i see it with zero commissions on online trades. i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪ i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. from packaging tape... to tape that can bond materials to buildings... and planes. one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. at 3m, we are solving problems that improve lives. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals.

ensure, for strength and energy. welcome back. tonight, i'm obsessed with the presidential change of address and welcoming a new florida man. president trump and his family are making palm beach, florida, their permanent resident citing high taxation and what the president says is unfair treatment by local politicians in new york. now, mr. trump is hardly the first new yorker to make a later in life morph to the sunshine state and as a born and raised floridan, those who were actually born there, it is my duty to show him the ropes. first, let me do a little history. one of the first people to leave his home for the shores of florida was pons de leon. you should know he was the first person to try to scam floridians with a fountain of youth, just

the not the last. some geography lessons, your mar-a-lago resort is in south florida but if you tell people you live in south florida, you will only in miami. we take our college football extremely seriously in florida, with seven top division teams, but you've got to pick just one. you don't get to root for all of them. and there is one right pick, but i'll leave that for you to decide. and while florida's republican-controlled statehouse is more in tune with your politics than the one you are leaving in new york, there is one thing you probably will not love about the state government there. the open records laws. just ask your son. it was revealed that his recent speech was done at the direction of the trump re-election campaign. and why did we find this out? thank florida's good old-fashioned sunshine laws and the fact that the university of florida is a state institution. so mr. president, welcome to florida, man. and if reports are to be

believed you're proposing to fill a moat at the border with alligators, you'll fit right in as a florida man. we'll be right back. it right in as a florida man we'll be right back. there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms.

humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds.

that should clear things up.

welcome back. we've got some alarming new information about climate change to share with you, as wildfires continue to burn in california, forcing residents to evacuate and leaving both neighborhoods and farmlands scorched that hadn't been scorched before. a new article in the "wall street journal" warns us, as devastating as these fires are right now, climate change will only make them worse. and of course, climate change

dangers aren't just from fire, but water as well. a new report released tuesday from climate research organization called climate central warns that some new elevation data triples some estimates of global vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding. all right, translation, new data is telling us that the dangers of climate change are simply way worse and the impact will impact many more people, and it's all happening much sooner than any of us thought. "the new york times" laid these findings out very helpfully in some graphics, flagging the news for those of who us might not be up to date on science journals and they showed us how quickly some of these cities may just disappear by 2050. joining me now, one of the authors of this report, his name is ben strauss, he is climate central feels ceo and chief scientist. mr. strauss, thank you for coming on. and i do want to get this, it's not that climate change is quote/unquote, speeding up, it's that we're getting more data that helps us understand the bleak picture better. is that a fair way of assessing

your report? >> yes, well, first of all, thanks so much for having me to discuss this important topic. and you're exactly right. there's no new projection of the speed of sea level rise or climate change here. but we had something that seems very simple wrong. we had our elevation data wrong. so what this study -- >> why is that? what does that mean for folks? >> you know, here in the united states, we have good -- we have good information. on the elevation of land above water. but globally, in a lot of places, in asia and africa, latin america, we don't have very good data. it's, you know, when you want to know how many people could be affected by rising sea levels, you really need to know two things. the height of the water that it's going to be and the height of the land where people live. and for various reasons, the data that we had previously and that the research community and world bank and others were using to assess the global threat

overestimated evaluations by more than 6 feet in coastal areas. so they gave us a real false sense of safety. >> so, china's government sees this, sees this map here of shanghai. i believe that was one of the cities that you showed that was essentially in high risk by 2050. 31 years from today what should the chinese government do with that information. what is it now to prevent that scenario, or is it unpreventable? >> well, there is the possibility of defending against higher seas in many locations. and shanghai already has a system of levees in place in some areas. so one thing the chinese government can do is invest -- you know, research their evaluations and do planning to build more levees, high enough to protect against the seas, as they continue to rise. that is going to be possible in many places, where there are

resources or where the geography permits it. but in other places, i think it will be prohibitive, because of difficulties in the geography, the shoreline is too complex, or a government just doesn't have the resources. >> i was just going to say, so let's take this -- let's bring this home to the united states. the two cities that usually get focused on the most when we talk about sort of encroachment of rising sea levels are new york city, battery park, and miami, that already has dry flooding. is the reason why those two cities weren't included in this projection because of what you told me earlier, that we have good data, so our projections are pretty accurate there? >> yes. we did a global analysis, but we're not highlighting the part in the united states, because we already have better data there. and we have done that analysis in the past. but miami -- new york and miami are still instructive, because miami is an example of a place that we really aren't going to be able to defend very well, because it's built on top of a bedrock that is made of old,

dead corals, and that rock is full of holes. so even if we built sea walls and levees, the ocean is going to penetrate underneath them and come up through the ground. new york will be difficult to defend, but more defensible than miami. >> well, this is not ideal, unfortunately, we only had a few minutes for this, but i've been trying to get this on all week and i'm glad we made time for you, mr. strauss. i hope folks spend a lot more time at climate central and look at this report and do more than just read it. anyway, mr. strauss, thank you very much. >> thank you so much for having me. >> you got it. that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back monday with a lot more "meet the press" daily. and we've got a weekend for you. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press," brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" polls. it's a doozy, a divided america, general election matchups, and a startling number of people who already say they will not vote for president trump under any

circumstances. andrew yang will also be my guest. ari melber. hi. >> today is the first day of the rest of his life with an impeachment probe barreling at him. we have reporting on four more investigators that will face monday, as they set the stage to determine which witnesses are right for this now round of public hearings. all eyes on diplomat bill taylor, hawk john bolton, and lieutenant colonel, alexander vindman. these are the kind of witnesses that democrats say bring credibility and could move americans. and that may include, of course, republicans. because tonight, i'm going to tell you right now, there are actually new reports on the growing support for impeachment and even trouble amo